Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you come at me with a bat (or heavy stick) and I have a gun, I'm shooting you. Period.

Edit: is this wrongheaded somehow?

Is he "brandishing" the bat or "coming at you" with the bat? From what I read the guy's companions walked away. Which sounds like in that situation it was more of the former. And it just seems to me if one has the ability to walk away from such a confrontation one should do so before taking a life.

Is he "brandishing" the bat or "coming at you" with the bat? From what I read the guy's companions walked away. Which sounds like in that situation it was more of the former. And it just seems to me if one has the ability to walk away from such a confrontation one should do so before taking a life.

OAW

The statement says he "swung it at them".

Are there pieces you edited out of the statement or referring to a different statement? It only discusses one person fleeing, and describes that person as having (and I quote) "ran away".

Are there pieces you edited out of the statement or referring to a different statement? It only discusses one person fleeing, and describes that person as having (and I quote) "ran away".

I've read several stories but I posted the entire article of the one that was most expansive. Some say "walk away" and some say "ran away". The impression I'm getting is the guy got out of the car and swung the bat in a threatening manner. It's unclear just how close he was to the group of teens at that point. This particular article actually said he "swung a heavy stick in their direction". So because of that I don't get the impression he was very close because none of the stories said any of them had to duck or dodge the bat.

Oh. And this whole time I thought the internet was little more than an electronic communications network.

My rationale for leaving was now its come out that one of Zimmerman's closest supporters is a virulent racist. This doesn't indict Zimmerman himself, but its just another reminder of the type of people who seem so drawn to that side of that case. He's so racist and worthless as a human being. It's utterly depressing.

That's unfortunate. Given the people drawn to the other side of this case, including the questionable statements of both Trayvon and Jeantel themselves as well as the subsequent displays of racism (Google "This is for Trayvon") and violence after the verdict; I would've thought an exhaustive pursuit into the personality profiles of "supporters" would've proved a fruitless endeavor to you.

Apparently not. I apologize to OAW for misrepresenting your perspective.

It really should be quite evident by now that these Stand Your Ground laws are INSANE. They encourage the escalation of conflicts to the level of deadly force that simply don't need to go there.

OAW

Guilty of murder or manslaughter? No, not under Fla law, but he'll be charged with illegal possession and sundry other charges (and likely tried as an adult), because he doesn't have a permit and couldn't legally carry that firearm. In the end, he's going to do time, possibly as much as a manslaughter conviction itself.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

Guilty of murder or manslaughter? No, not under Fla law, but he'll be charged with illegal possession and sundry other charges (and likely tried as an adult), because he doesn't have a permit and couldn't legally carry that firearm. In the end, he's going to do time, possibly as much as a manslaughter conviction itself.

Manslaughter seems appropriate. And you are correct, they will try him on the other charges as an adult. Which is problematic in my opinion. Not the charges but the trying him as an adult part. I just have the view that if we are going to have a juvenile system then we should stick to it. Sometimes trying as a juvenile and sometimes trying as an adult is a process that invites all kinds of abuse and disparate treatment. But that's a topic for another thread.

He didn't commit manslaughter according to Florida law, so he shouldn't be charged with it. If the people of Florida don't like the way that law is written, it can be changed. As you know, there's a process for that.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

It's fairly predictable that we'd begin an exhaustive dig into Zimmerman's associates to manufacture Zimmerman's racial animus. After all, the FBI interviewed some 30+ people in his life looking for any signs of racism; they interviewed co-workers, bosses, friends, neighbors, ex- fiancé, parents and inlaws... nothing. The only things you'll find in GZ's past other than a mutual restraining order he and his ex had on one another in which GZ's dog allegedly tried to bite her and an "altercation" with police that turns out was more of a push and was dropped; GZ takes black girlfriend to prom. Check. Publicly campaigned for Sherman Ware -- a homeless black man beaten by a Sanford police lieutenant's white son. Check. GZ, a registered Hispanic and Democrat who voted for and campaigned within the family to vote for Obama. Check. Mentored black youth. Check. Started small insurance business with black friend in Florida. Check.

Oh, but it is any nebulous, potential Zimmerman associate that paints the picture of a disgustingly virulent racist killer and worthless human being because of course THIS evidence trumps all else. Got it.

Not required, just optimal. It removes as much ambiguity as possible about consent and motives. It also satisfies the "guilt" or "crime" requirement, and it's even a crime that's automatically relevant to the sexual act. I debated about trying to avoid seeming to be obsessed with prostitutes, but it just seems like I have to make things as extreme as possible for this divide to be bridged.

It would be more muddied. Don't you think?

What about threat of blackmail, or drugging them, or fraud (I'll pay you after, or something)?

Or so pathetically that she couldn't help but pity him...

Sorry I've been slow here.

Re: Statuatory Rape and your post
My point is your statement is only true from a technical standpoint, and thus takes us away from the matter at hand. Statuatory rape is rape in name only.

Re: Prostitution
I agree it muddles things, but I still don't see a scenario wherein the prostitute engages in behavior wherein she should accept blame for a rape. The closest I can come up with is things getting physical as the client tries to get a refund, that's not rape though. As I don't see a rape being in any way necessary to reclaiming your money, it's purely retaliatory. This is opposed to, say, a shoving match.

Likewise if the prostitute was engaged in other criminal activities. From a moral standpoint, I don't believe in an eye for an eye. Let's take a worst-case scenario. The prostitute is a psycho who wants to chain you up and torture you to death.

Should the situation get reversed, you don't get to torture them back. If you can't rape for torture and attempted murder, you can't rape for extortion.

I was more than happy to pursue this tangent, as long as the rest of the thread seemed like nothing but a post mortem. Now that's it's in full-on zombie, I think the whole rape thing needs to get its own thread. I don't want to get stood up though, so if you start it, I promise to answer there and if you want to drop it, I'm with that too

Oh. And this whole time I thought the internet was little more than an electronic communications network.

I wasn't being glib. The internet, as a community has a habit of capping pop culture scenes and posting them to convey their emotions, rather than typing them out. Much like, who loves cats? The internet.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

That's unfortunate. Given the people drawn to the other side of this case, including the questionable statements of both Trayvon and Jeantel themselves as well as the subsequent displays of racism (Google "This is for Trayvon") and violence after the verdict; I would've thought an exhaustive pursuit into the personality profiles of "supporters" would've proved a fruitless endeavor to you.

That Travyon supporters are made up of people who play the race-card or want to ban guns? Feel free to post them, it'd be illuminating (well, less so now), but my issue is the loudest Zimmerman supporters are some of the worst people around. Not sure if its the case for Martin.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Apparently not. I apologize to OAW for misrepresenting your perspective.

Don't worry about it. Its not like it was out of malice. I just cleared things up because they needed clearing up (well, and I cared enough).

That Travyon supporters are made up of people who play the race-card or want to ban guns? Feel free to post them, it'd be illuminating (well, less so now), but my issue is the loudest Zimmerman supporters are some of the worst people around. Not sure if its the case for Martin.

Wait, GZ's "supporter" was reportedly airing virulently racist sentiment in his past. To counter, I stated these exhaustive personality profiles on "supporters" is lame because it absolutely misses the obvious; supporters of the other side are singling out whites and attacking them "for Trayvon". That's decidedly virulent racism by those who support the other side of the case. What matters is the actual people in this case -- Trayvon and George Zimmerman and of these two, the only expressions even implying slur or race is Trayvon's side of the case, not GZs. The other people don't matter and the tit for tat game on this is patently absurd. IMO

Wait, GZ's "supporter" was reportedly airing virulently racist sentiment in his past. To counter, I stated these exhaustive personality profiles on "supporters" is lame because it absolutely misses the obvious; supporters of the other side are singling out whites and attacking them "for Trayvon". That's decidedly virulent racism by those who support the other side of the case. What matters is the actual people in this case -- Trayvon and George Zimmerman and of these two, the only expressions even implying slur or race is Trayvon's side of the case, not GZs. The other people don't matter and the tit for tat game on this is patently absurd. IMO

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

Wait, GZ's "supporter" was reportedly airing virulently racist sentiment in his past. To counter, I stated these exhaustive personality profiles on "supporters" is lame because it absolutely misses the obvious; supporters of the other side are singling out whites and attacking them "for Trayvon".

Considering we have riots that destroy cars and injure people in celebration of a sports team winning a national title, I'm almost surprised at how tame this stuff is. After Rodney King something bad was expected.

Of course, I'm not sure I'd equate poorly thought out emotional outbursts that result in crime with a well thought out arguments from racists. But then again, I should take a step back, because I'm getting drawn into a "who's supporters are worse" pissing match. Because thats all this subject brings out in people.

If it's any consolation to you, I wasn't being glib. There are some that for one reason or another simply cannot avail themselves of information. I'd help you by googling some of this stuff for you if I thought it were necessary. Just checkin'.

What's surprising is that Florida has a had some nasty post verdict riots on the past. The difference being it was policemen that were acquitted.

I'm not sure I follow. That's pretty much Rodney King, just in a different state. What's surprising?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

If it's any consolation to you, I wasn't being glib. There are some that for one reason or another simply cannot avail themselves of information. I'd help you by googling some of this stuff for you if I thought it were necessary. Just checkin'.

Man, you really took offense to that internet comment, huh? My bad.

Anyway, my argument from yesterday was crap anyway. Unless you're looking for a philosophical debate, who wouldn't rather deal with the lifelong racist with national exposure over the racist who beats the crap out of someone in the heat of the moment?

Anyway, my argument from yesterday was crap anyway. Unless you're looking for a philosophical debate, who wouldn't rather deal with the lifelong racist with national exposure over the racist who beats the crap out of someone in the heat of the moment?

I think there's an obvious reason why people would want to deal with anyone other than George Zimmerman and it's not out of any genuine pursuit of the truth or of racial justice. The conundrum of those on the other side of the case is that George Zimmerman does not in any way fit the profile they're trying to pin on him not only in lacking any history of racial animus, but quite the contrary.

Picking on the others is only serving philosophical debate, having nothing to do with the case itself, its primary players, or reality.

Being able to walk away from a confrontation is always better, armed or not. But should you be required, by law, to flee from your own home when confronted by someone who broke in? That is the basis of every state's "stand your ground" statutes. In Texas it's called the "Castle Doctrine," i.e. your home (castle) is one place where you should never have to flee from. Some states have worded their statutes so that the individual can apply this legal doctrine to their car, and others have broadened it rather more. The idea behind "stand your ground" has nothing to do with "chase someone down," nor "ignore instructions from police." Those are individual choices made poorly.

What I see in this whole case is a lot of "journalists" getting plenty of print and air time with their incomplete or faulty understanding of...well just about everything related to the case, but particularly the legal details regarding concealed carry rules, use of deadly force, and so on. Worse, it seems that, like in the Texas case recently (jerk shoots at fleeing (probably) pimp and hooker), that the prosecutors showed a woeful lack of understanding of both the situation they were going to court with and the statutes involved. And somehow most people think of attorneys as "smart people..."

Finally, from my South Texas perspective, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of what a "white Hispanic" is. It boggles my mind.

Being able to walk away from a confrontation is always better, armed or not. But should you be required, by law, to flee from your own home when confronted by someone who broke in? That is the basis of every state's "stand your ground" statutes. In Texas it's called the "Castle Doctrine," i.e. your home (castle) is one place where you should never have to flee from. Some states have worded their statutes so that the individual can apply this legal doctrine to their car, and others have broadened it rather more. The idea behind "stand your ground" has nothing to do with "chase someone down," nor "ignore instructions from police." Those are individual choices made poorly.

Finally, from my South Texas perspective, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of what a "white Hispanic" is. It boggles my mind.

"Hispanic" is a ethnic group based primarily upon language (i.e. Spanish) and geography (i.e. South & Central America, and Mexico). Modern day "Hispanics" can trace their ancestry to the more or less white, "Spanish Conquistadors", to the varying shades of brown "Natives", and depending upon the country to the black "African" slaves that were imported. Many have a combination of these ancestries while some have more ancestry in one of these groups than others. I recall working a project in Monterrey, Mexico once where I encountered white-skinned Mexicans with blonde hair and blue eyes ... as well as more "Native" looking Mexicans who were nearly as dark-skinned as I am. And naturally everything in between. I went to college with this guy from Belize. From a distance one might think he was "white" with a slight tan. Upon closer inspection one would see the African influences in his wavy hair texture. He mentioned how it was common place to have members of different so-called "races" in one extended family. He spoke of how he had one grandmother that was as dark as me. Another who would be considered white in the US. How even among his siblings the skin tones varied from fair to dark. So yes there are "white Hispanics". You might recognize one named Ramón Antonio Gerardo Estévez.

"Hispanic" is a ethnic group based primarily upon language (i.e. Spanish) and geography (i.e. South & Central America, and Mexico). Modern day "Hispanics" can trace their ancestry to the more or less white, "Spanish Conquistadors", to the varying shades of brown "Natives", and depending upon the country to the black "African" slaves that were imported. Many have a combination of these ancestries while some have more ancestry in one of these groups than others. I recall working a project in Monterrey, Mexico once where I encountered white-skinned Mexicans with blonde hair and blue eyes ... as well as more "Native" looking Mexicans who were nearly as dark-skinned as I am. And naturally everything in between. I went to college with this guy from Belize. From a distance one might think he was "white" with a slight tan. Upon closer inspection one would see the African influences in his wavy hair texture. He mentioned how it was common place to have members of different so-called "races" in one extended family. He spoke of how he had one grandmother that was as dark as me. Another who would be considered white in the US. How even among his siblings the skin tones varied from fair to dark. So yes there are "white Hispanics". You might recognize one named Ramón Antonio Gerardo Estévez.

OAW

i.e. there's really no rhyme or reason to such delineation other than its contribution to the agenda du jour.

... but my issue is the loudest Zimmerman supporters are some of the worst people around. Not sure if its the case for Martin.

The only way one could say; "I'm not sure it's the case for Martin" is because they've completely shut-out any information that might stand in the way of a perfectly good presupposition. Either way, when someone expresses such strong opinions regarding one side of an issue, it'd be refreshing if they had at least a modicum of knowledge regarding the other side and might lend itself to more quality discussion overall. It's only screwing up if you really want to be well-rounded in your analysis and missed the boat. I'm not sure that's the case here.

So Florida gets a pass on judgment by skin color, sorting folks by how much melanin they present to the world? I really don't get that...

Mr. Estévez is also Irish and Spanish... How does that work in the mix, keeping in mind that there is a very large group of Spaniards who are blond and blue eyed, just as there are black haired, brown eyed Irishmen..

So Florida gets a pass on judgment by skin color, sorting folks by how much melanin they present to the world? I really don't get that...

Mr. Estévez is also Irish and Spanish... How does that work in the mix, keeping in mind that there is a very large group of Spaniards who are blond and blue eyed, just as there are black haired, brown eyed Irishmen..

I'm a Latino with fair skin, my mother is full Cuban (fair skin) but her mother's family was only one generation removed from León, Spain (lots of blondes with blue eyes in the north country), my great-grandmother's skin and eye color was as light as any Scandinavian's. My daughter's skin, however, has a decidedly olive cast with lighter eyes, very Mediterranean (just like my great-grandfather, who was from Barcelona).

Grouping folks by skin color is ridiculous, because we're all mutts.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

I'm a Latino with fair skin, my mother is full Cuban (fair skin) but her mother's family was only one generation removed from León, Spain (lots of blondes with blue eyes in the north country), my great-grandmother's skin and eye color was as light as any Scandinavian's. My daughter's skin, however, has a decidedly olive cast with lighter eyes, very Mediterranean (just like my great-grandfather, who was from Barcelona).

I've been called a "white Mexican." My family (both parents) can trace it's roots to the Santa Fe settlement. They never lived in what is now Mexico. They lived in what became the New Mexico territory, and after the split, the Arizona territory.
This my greatgrandfather Captain Tomas Perez, US Marshall, and Sheriff of Apache County, AZ TerritoryCaptain Tomas Perez (US Civil War- pictures)

(
Last edited by Chongo; Aug 24, 2013 at 12:13 PM.
)

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD